Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JIMOB's Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JIMOB adheres to a single-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, JIMOB needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 4-6 weeks after the time they are accepted to review. Maintaining JIMOB as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.
If you have been invited by JIMOB's Chief Editor to review a manuscript, please consider the following:
1. Reviewing the manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their works
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
6. Reporting possible research misconduct
7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
10. Not communicating directly with authors
11. Not identifying themselves to authors
12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
15. Writing extended abstract in English only
What Should Be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?
3. Scientific reliability
4. Valuable contribution to the science
5. Adding new aspects to the existing field of study
6. Ethical aspects
7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
8. References provided to substantiate the content
9. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
10. Scientific misconduct
The names of respectable reviewers
Volume 4, Issue 2, Serial Number 8, Fall 2022
Volume 2, Issue 3, Serial Number 7, Summer 2022
Volume 2, Issue 2, Serial Number 6, Spring 2022
Fathi, M., Salahi, M., Namazi, M., Hejazi, R., Moghaddas, Z., Salmani, Y., Khodad Hosseini, S. H., Pouya, A., Askarani, D., Sepehri, M. M., Tabarsa, G., Abolhasani, S. R., Karami, A., Iranzadeh, S., Hashem Zehi, J.
Volume 2, Issue 1, Serial Number 5, Winter 2022
Hosnavi, R., Safari, S., Darbani, S. A., Mirzae, A., Alem Tabrizi, A., Tarokh, M. J., Eliasi, M., Radfar, R., Manteghi, M., Fartoukzadeh, H., Saeeda Ardakani, S., Sabaghian, Z., Biazar, J., Tajodini, K.
Volume 1, Issue 4, Serial Number 4, Fall 2021
Rostami, M., Kafashpour, A., Safari, S., Darbani, S. A., Mirzae, A., Alem Tabrizi, A., Tarokh, M. J., Bani Mahdi, B., Khodamipour, A., Ebrahimnejad, A., Tehranian, H., Jafari, M. B., Fesharaki, M., Karimi, M.
Volume 1, Issue 3, Serial Number 3, Summer 2021
Vazifehdoust, H., Tabarsa, G., Mohammadi, A., Iranzadeh, S., Safari, S., Karami, A., Fathiazar, E., Feiz, D., Hosseinchari, M., Sepehri, M., Rahmani Seresht, H., Feiz, D., Amiri, A. N.
Volume 1, Issue 2, Serial Number 2, Spring 2021
Iranzadeh, S., Gholizadeh, R., Feiz, D., Tabarsa, G., Safari, S., Saatchi, M., Jafari, M. B., Monavarian, A., Mousakhanim M., Abolhasani, S. R., Sabaghchian, Z., Kafashpour, A.
Volume 1, Issue 1, Serial Number 1, Winter 2021
Amin Bidokhti, A., Saeeda Ardakani, S., Karami, A., Rostami, M., Iranzadeh, S., Gholizadeh, R. Feiz, D., Mashayekhi, A. N.